Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report and referred Members to the additional papers, which detailed two further responses to the consultation and proposed amendments to recommendations.

Mr I Rhodes, Iceni Projects on behalf of the developer consortium was introduced and was available to answer any questions if required.

In response to a question from Councillor V Richichi, Mr I Rhodes reported that realistically work would begin on the site in approximately spring 2020.

In response to a question from Councillor N Smith, the Planning Policy Team Manager confirmed that the parking provision behind the college had been agreed as part of the outline planning permission for the initial 605 dwellings and would therefore be included in the first phase.

Councillor D Bigby raised concerns that the report seemed to be ‘side stepping’ the requirement of the Ashby Neighbourhood plan, the wording of which stated that the masterplan had to be agreed in conjunction with the Town Council.  He believed that the Town Council should have been involved in the discussions.

At 6.52pm, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to seek legal advice.  The Chairman, Councillor D Bigby, the Head of Planning and Infrastructure, the Planning Policy Team Manager and the Legal Advisor left the room during the adjournment.  The meeting re-convened at 6.55pm.

At this point the following interests were declared:

Councillor D Bigby declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item as he had responded to the consultation as a member of the public.

Councillor J Hoult declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item as the Chairman of Ashby Town Council.

Councillor N Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item as a business owner in Ashby.

Councillor D Bigby would like to see a reference to the Ashby Neighbourhood Plan in the recommendations of the report; specifically that developers should comply with this plan as well as the District Council’s Local Plan.  He also pointed out that Ashby Town Council had requested that employment land should only consist of type B1 and B2, not B8.  He felt that the employment land figures indicated that the area was already oversubscribed in accordance with the HEDNA requirements, therefore the shortfall was for type B1 a and b only, and there was no justification for type B8 in the area.

In relation to the comments surrounding the Ashby Neighbourhood Plan, the Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the District Council could only take into consideration the Local Plan, which was the authority’s responsibility.  However, the aim of the Design Code was to be compliant with the Ashby Neighbourhood Plan and the suggested amendment should address this. 

In relation to the comments about the employment land, the Planning Policy Team Manager explained that there was a shortfall against the HEDNA and needed to be addressed in the Local Plan.  As the site was identified as suitable for employment land within the Local Plan, which included B8 then it could not be taken out, as changes could not be made to an adopted plan. 

Councillor J Legrys raised concerns that once the site was developed, residents would have to drive into town unless access was made easier.  He wanted to see more work and effort being placed on providing footways and cycle ways into the town.  He also wanted to see reference to it as part of the application when it was considered by the Planning Committee.  The Chairman concurred with the comments.

Councillor D Harrison asked if the development would include a nursing home, as he believed this was part of the planning permission.  Mr I Rhodes stated that the existing outline permission included the provision of a care home but this was not a requirement and was dependant on the interest of service providers.  Following a further question from Councillor D Harrison, Mr I Rhodes explained that the developers were only providing the land for the school; it would be the responsibility of the local education authority to develop the school.

The recommendations within the report with the additional recommendations within the additional paper were moved by Councillor V Richichi, seconded by Councillor N Smith and

RECOMMENDED THAT:

Cabinet support the revised masterplan as set out at appendix b as satisfying the requirement of local plan policies H3A(VIII) and EC2(1)(H) subject to:

(i)         The masterplan being reworded to make clear that the overall density of housing development achieved across the site should be 35 dwellings per hectare and not necessarily  in each phase or parcel of development;

(ii)        The preparation and agreement of a design code for that area covered by the masterplan to be secured by either a condition on an outline planning permission or as part of the submission of a full planning application;

(iii)      The design code taking into account any national and local design guidance in place at the time that the design code was prepared;

(iv)      Consideration being given by the Development Consortium to the comments received in response to the consultation when preparing the design code;

(v)       The Design Code including a review mechanism for purposes as specified in the Design Code.

At conclusion of the item, Councillor M B Wyatt left the meeting.